• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who Knew....?

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You think that life sprang into existence all by itself somehow with no intelligent direction at all......so you do believe it "poofed" itself into existence.
A result of gradual chemical changes is not "poofing" into existence. Diamonds don't "poof" into existence either. They form under great pressure over a very long period of time under very specific conditions.

How is your idea better than what the Bible says?
Because the Bible gets a lot of basic facts wrong, like saying earth and plants pre-date the sun and birds pre-date land animals.

Science has no idea how life began......so it cannot eliminate a Creator.
It doesn't have to. You have to demonstrate a creator.

It knows for a fact that "life springs from pre-existing life".....so the existence of an Intelligent Creator is more in keeping with that fact rather than a chance chemical accident somewhere in the dim dark past.
Except that would still violate the very thing you just said. If God is a living thing, then the rule cannot be true because God didn't come from anything.

All of the beliefs you have espoused also lack substantive evidence. There is no evidence for macro-evolution except in the fertile imagination of science.
It has been observed countless times.

If there was conclusive proof, it would have been provided by now.....there have only been unsubstantiated suggestions to date.
Said examples have been provided to you multiple times.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Absolutely! And that applies to you as much as it does to me.
128fs318181.gif
Of course.

It's too bad you seem to have forgotten our entire conversation about this. Remember I pointed out to you that despite the fact that I really want to believe that my deceased father lives on in some paradise somewhere, especially given the fact that his life was quite difficult and I think he would deserve some relief in some kind of heaven. Despite what I want, I can't find any reason to believe that it is actually the case. I'm the kind of person who needs solid reasons to believe things.

Who says it isn't?
You assumed, by the way you asked the question, that it is a "Who." That's what I'm pointing out to you. We're not justified in saying it's a "who" without good evidence for it.


You think that life sprang into existence all by itself somehow with no intelligent direction at all......so you do believe it "poofed" itself into existence. How is your idea better than what the Bible says? Science has no idea how life began......so it cannot eliminate a Creator. It knows for a fact that "life springs from pre-existing life".....so the existence of an Intelligent Creator is more in keeping with that fact rather than a chance chemical accident somewhere in the dim dark past.
That's funny, since I've never mentioned how I think life first arose on earth, except to say that "I don't know."

The idea that everything "poofed" into existence comes from god beliefs where god created everything in the universe from nothing.

I know that chemicals exist. I know that living organisms are made up of chemicals. I know that chemicals interact with each other in varying ways and in varying environments. I know that Miller-Urey and many other scientists that followed have demonstrated that it's at least theoretically possible that life can form from non-living matter. That's what I know. I do not know that any god(s) exist. So, until that day comes, I have to follow where the evidence leads. In this case, I don't see it pointing toward any god(s), given that nobody has yet managed to demonstrate the existence of any god(s).

Science didn't eliminate a creator. The utter lack of evidence for a creator eliminated a creator.

All of the beliefs you have espoused also lack substantive evidence. There is no evidence for macro-evolution except in the fertile imagination of science. If there was conclusive proof, it would have been provided by now.....there have only been unsubstantiated suggestions to date.
You're dead wrong about macroevolution, as thoroughly discussed and demonstrated over and over. Evolution is well evidenced, which is the reason it's the prevailing (and only) scientific theory that best describes the diversity of life on earth. Your belief has absolutely no explanatory power, nor evidence backing it up. If you disagree with that last line, then please show me your God.

You do understand that this also applies equally to yourself? :rolleyes:

Yes, as discussed above.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Do they? And what has that to do with me?

For one, you seem a little self-centered. You could have taken my inductive observation regarding atheists, observed them, and found common ground with me in the scriptures. Don't be so full of yourself IMHO.
 

siti

Well-Known Member
You could have taken my inductive observation regarding atheists, observed them, and found common ground with me in the scriptures.
Ignoring the "Messianic Jewish Christian" insults you sandwiched this between, why the heck would I want to do that? And what does this "inductive observation" have to with whale crap and singing crickets?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
But science cannot handle metaphysics. Logic and math exist and are axiomatic in any science discourse. Logic and math (and Spirit) are metaphysics. We cannot use "science" to prove logic and math exist but they are accepted.

Logic and math are *languages* that we use to help us describe the world. But they are NOT axiomatic. For example, there were explorations of 'quantum logic' that used a different underlying logic to help understand quantum theory (it is no longer used, but it was investigated).

Math is abstract. As such, it doesn't say anything about the real world without a 'translation' which may or may not be accurate. it is science that determines, through observation and testing, which math applies and to what extent. And the mathematical consequences of the laws found are *also* tested, just to be sure the laws apply in the extremes also.

As for 'spirit', I have no idea what that is supposed to be or how it relates to either logic or math.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
A result of gradual chemical changes is not "poofing" into existence. Diamonds don't "poof" into existence either. They form under great pressure over a very long period of time under very specific conditions.

At what point did this chemical change begin living? Evidence please.

Diamonds are not "alive". Science understands the process of how they are created. It does not understand the process of how life began.....and it never will. The very "specific conditions" that produced life were created by a mind much greater than man's.

Because the Bible gets a lot of basic facts wrong, like saying earth and plants pre-date the sun and birds pre-date land animals.

No, it doesn't.

You have to demonstrate a creator.

You have never demonstrated that you can eliminate him.
He was here way before your clever human scientists decided that since they couldn't see him or explain him "scientifically", that he can't exist. He can and he does.

Except that would still violate the very thing you just said. If God is a living thing, then the rule cannot be true because God didn't come from anything.

You really believe that science knows all there is to know about what is....."out there"?
It knows practically nothing of what there is to know.....but it makes lots of unsubstantiated guesses, based on very little evidence.

It has been observed countless times.

Show us what has been observed countless times that is not simply adaptation? Providing variety within one taxonomic family is not macro-evolution....it never was. To suggest that they are one and the same thing is nonsense....more guesswork.

Said examples have been provided to you multiple times.

Nothing has been provided except the musings of men with a vivid imagination and the power of suggestion.
There is no proof for any of science's suggestions, as the evolutionists here keep telling me.

If you think God disappears just because humans decide that he isn't "scientific" enough for them....that is way funnier than you can imagine.
25r30wi.gif
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
At what point did this chemical change begin living? Evidence please.
The earliest life forms found in the fossil record are dated to around 4.28 billion years ago:

Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates - White Rose Research Online
Scientists Say Canadian Bacteria Fossils May Be Earth’s Oldest

Diamonds are not "alive". Science understands the process of how they are created. It does not understand the process of how life began.....and it never will. The very "specific conditions" that produced life were created by a mind much greater than man's.
Baseless assertions. If you understand the diamonds don't "poof" into existence then you should know that comparing abiogenesis to "poofing" into existence is a misnomer.


No, it doesn't.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.


Genesis 1 - NIV Bible - In the beginning God created the heavens and the......

You have never demonstrated that you can eliminate him.
I never said that God is eliminated. Anything's possible.

He was here way before your clever human scientists decided that since they couldn't see him or explain him "scientifically", that he can't exist. He can and he does.
And yet you can't demonstrate it rationally or logically in any way and all of your arguments in favour of belief in them are extremely flawed and based on logical fallacies and denial of basic facts.

You really believe that science knows all there is to know about what is....."out there"?
Nope. Never said that. That's just a strawman.

It knows practically nothing of what there is to know.....but it makes lots of unsubstantiated guesses, based on very little evidence.
Better than making assumptions based on no evidence, or assumptions that are contrary to evidence.

Also, it's very telling that you failed to respond to my refutation of your earlier argument about life only coming from life. I can only assume this is because you realised how poor, nonsensical and self-defeating the argument is afte I demonstrated it. So, I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong.

Another point to me!

Show us what has been observed countless times that is not simply adaptation? Providing variety within one taxonomic family is not macro-evolution....it never was. To suggest that they are one and the same thing is nonsense....more guesswork.
You do realise that ALL evolution occurs within a taxonomic family, right? Nothing produces something OTHER than what it is, everything reproduces A COPY OF WHAT IT IS WITH VARIATION. This has been explained repeatedly.

Please give me an precise, hypothetical example of what, to you, would constitute "macro-evolution".

Nothing has been provided except the musings of men with a vivid imagination and the power of suggestion.
There is no proof for any of science's suggestions, as the evolutionists here keep telling me.
Your ignorance of the facts put in front of you is not our fault.

If you think God disappears just because humans decide that he isn't "scientific" enough for them....that is way funnier than you can imagine.
25r30wi.gif
Is it possible for you to make an argument without putting words in people's mouths? Are you so incapable of dealing with the arguments actually made that you have to INVENT arguments of your own?
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
The earliest life forms found in the fossil record are dated to around 4.28 billion years ago:

Evidence for early life in Earth’s oldest hydrothermal vent precipitates - White Rose Research Online

You know, it always fascinates me when people like you throw in links like this.....do you even read them?

From your first link.....

"Although it is not known when or where life on Earth began, some of the earliest habitable environments may have been submarine-hydrothermal vents. Here we describe putative fossilized microorganisms that are at least 3,770 million and possibly 4,280 million years old in ferruginous sedimentary rocks, interpreted as seafloor-hydrothermal vent-related precipitates, from the Nuvvuagittuq belt in Quebec, Canada. These structures occur as micrometre-scale haematite tubes and filaments with morphologies and mineral assemblages similar to those of filamentous microorganisms from modern hydrothermal vent precipitates and analogous microfossils in younger rocks. The Nuvvuagittuq rocks contain isotopically light carbon in carbonate and carbonaceous material, which occurs as graphitic inclusions in diagenetic carbonate rosettes, apatite blades intergrown among carbonate rosettes and magnetite–haematite granules, and is associated with carbonate in direct contact with the putative microfossils. Collectively, these observations are consistent with an oxidized biomass and provide evidence for biological activity in submarine-hydrothermal environments more than 3,770 million years ago."

What is this REALLY saying as opposed to what you THINK it is saying?

Read it and concentrate on the highlighted parts.

"putative fossilized microorganisms"....is another way of saying it is suggested that this is the case.

"Interpreted as" is another way of saying "this is how we read this evidence according to what science suggests".

"Similar to"...is another way of saying that if something is "similar", it must suggest relationship.

"Associated with" is another suggestion that similarity means relationship. There are many creatures that are similar but unrelated.

"Collectively, these observations are consistent with".....Again this is the language of suggestion.

This is proof that there is no proof for anything science presents as its "evidence". The truth is masked by scientific jargon and suggestion is a marketing ploy often used to sell products to people who don't really need them. The power of suggestion is never more obvious than it is in science's vain attempt to paint evolution as a fact, rather than what it really is....an unprovable figment of their imagination.

Now what about your second link....?

Scientists Say Canadian Bacteria Fossils May Be Earth’s Oldest

"On Wednesday, researchers reported that these may be the oldest fossils ever discovered, the remains of bacteria thriving on Earth not long, geologically speaking, after the very birth of the planet. If so, they offer evidence that life here got off to a very early start.

But many experts in the field were skeptical of the new study — or downright unconvinced.

Martin J. Van Kranendonk, a geologist at the University of New South Wales, called the patterns in the rocks “dubiofossils”fossil-like structures, perhaps, but without clear proof that they started out as something alive."

Are you getting the picture? Please keep the links coming......I enjoy them very much.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Genesis 1 - NIV Bible - In the beginning God created the heavens and the......

Let me quote the 10 verses before that portion of Genesis.....

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

3 And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.

6 Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."


In the first verse there is a simple statement that the entire universe had a beginning. There is no time frame connecting verse 1 and what follows. This allows for an old earth, created long before its preparation for habitation began.

Verse 2 begins by describing a desolate planet perhaps shrouded in darkness by cloud cover, yet God's first declaration was "Let there be light". So right from the first creative "day" there was night and day as we would expect of a rotating planet. There was obviously enough visible light to sustain the plant life that followed.

So light appeared before anything else. (It does not necessarily mean that the heavenly bodies were clearly discernible at that point. The beginning of the fourth day describes that.)

God then divided the waters covering the planet. He divided the waters above the atmosphere from the waters below, making some kind of water canopy that would have made the earth like a hothouse, keeping it moist and humid....ideal conditions for life to thrive. Geologists know that the earth at one time enjoyed a uniform climate.
When we think of the enormous volumes of water held in clouds that can cause flooding, when it falls as rain, it is not hard to imagine that God could suspend a water canopy above the atmosphere.
The "heaven" he describes is not the heaven where God lives, but a word that describes where birds and other creatures fly.

Next the dry land was separated out from the oceans.
One can imagine the kind of power needed to force land masses to come up out of the oceans. Many islands that exist today are the result of volcanic and earthquake activity.

So with the dry land and a rich moist atmosphere, vegetation was said to be the first living specimens to exist on earth. God doesn't mention bacteria, since it was beyond man's capability to see them back then. Vegetation ensured that all land dwelling creatures that fed on grasses had plenty to eat long before they arrived.

Please don't quote scripture to a Bible teacher.....unless you really know what you're talking about....which you clearly don't. o_O
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Better than making assumptions based on no evidence, or assumptions that are contrary to evidence.

Also, it's very telling that you failed to respond to my refutation of your earlier argument about life only coming from life. I can only assume this is because you realised how poor, nonsensical and self-defeating the argument is afte I demonstrated it. So, I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong.

Another point to me!

You can't mean this comment....?

Except that would still violate the very thing you just said. If God is a living thing, then the rule cannot be true because God didn't come from anything.

171.gif
I didn't realize that it needed refuting......God is not a material being who inhabits a material realm, so the rules that apply here, don't apply to him.......you really need to work on your assumptive skills and apply them to the words of the Bible as well as you do to the words of your science gods. They have no evidence either, but it seems as if you have never noticed.

I am assuming that scoring points is your objective here.....I think I'd score you a
smilie_fail.gif
sorry.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Let me quote the 10 verses before that portion of Genesis.....

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

2 Now the earth was formless and desolate, and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep, and God’s active force was moving about over the surface of the waters.

3 And God said: “Let there be light.” Then there was light. 4 After that God saw that the light was good, and God began to divide the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, but the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, a first day.

6 Then God said: “Let there be an expanse between the waters, and let there be a division between the waters and the waters.” 7 Then God went on to make the expanse and divided the waters beneath the expanse from the waters above the expanse. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

9 Then God said: “Let the waters under the heavens be collected together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, but the collecting of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good."


In the first verse there is a simple statement that the entire universe had a beginning. There is no time frame connecting verse 1 and what follows. This allows for an old earth, created long before its preparation for habitation began.

Verse 2 begins by describing a desolate planet perhaps shrouded in darkness by cloud cover, yet God's first declaration was "Let there be light". So right from the first creative "day" there was night and day as we would expect of a rotating planet. There was obviously enough visible light to sustain the plant life that followed.

So light appeared before anything else. (It does not necessarily mean that the heavenly bodies were clearly discernible at that point. The beginning of the fourth day describes that.)

God then divided the waters covering the planet. He divided the waters above the atmosphere from the waters below, making some kind of water canopy that would have made the earth like a hothouse, keeping it moist and humid....ideal conditions for life to thrive. Geologists know that the earth at one time enjoyed a uniform climate.
When we think of the enormous volumes of water held in clouds that can cause flooding, when it falls as rain, it is not hard to imagine that God could suspend a water canopy above the atmosphere.
The "heaven" he describes is not the heaven where God lives, but a word that describes where birds and other creatures fly.

Next the dry land was separated out from the oceans.
One can imagine the kind of power needed to force land masses to come up out of the oceans. Many islands that exist today are the result of volcanic and earthquake activity.

So with the dry land and a rich moist atmosphere, vegetation was said to be the first living specimens to exist on earth. God doesn't mention bacteria, since it was beyond man's capability to see them back then. Vegetation ensured that all land dwelling creatures that fed on grasses had plenty to eat long before they arrived.

Please don't quote scripture to a Bible teacher.....unless you really know what you're talking about....which you clearly don't. o_O
Thanks for the Bible lesson, but you haven't even responded to the actual point, which is that the Bible specifically says that plants pre-date the sun and that birds pre-date land animals.

How is your attention span this short?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
You know, it always fascinates me when people like you throw in links like this.....do you even read them?

From your first link.....

"Although it is not known when or where life on Earth began, some of the earliest habitable environments may have been submarine-hydrothermal vents. Here we describe putative fossilized microorganisms that are at least 3,770 million and possibly 4,280 million years old in ferruginous sedimentary rocks, interpreted as seafloor-hydrothermal vent-related precipitates, from the Nuvvuagittuq belt in Quebec, Canada. These structures occur as micrometre-scale haematite tubes and filaments with morphologies and mineral assemblages similar to those of filamentous microorganisms from modern hydrothermal vent precipitates and analogous microfossils in younger rocks. The Nuvvuagittuq rocks contain isotopically light carbon in carbonate and carbonaceous material, which occurs as graphitic inclusions in diagenetic carbonate rosettes, apatite blades intergrown among carbonate rosettes and magnetite–haematite granules, and is associated with carbonate in direct contact with the putative microfossils. Collectively, these observations are consistent with an oxidized biomass and provide evidence for biological activity in submarine-hydrothermal environments more than 3,770 million years ago."

What is this REALLY saying as opposed to what you THINK it is saying?

Read it and concentrate on the highlighted parts.

"putative fossilized microorganisms"....is another way of saying it is suggested that this is the case.

"Interpreted as" is another way of saying "this is how we read this evidence according to what science suggests".

"Similar to"...is another way of saying that if something is "similar", it must suggest relationship.

"Associated with" is another suggestion that similarity means relationship. There are many creatures that are similar but unrelated.

"Collectively, these observations are consistent with".....Again this is the language of suggestion.

This is proof that there is no proof for anything science presents as its "evidence". The truth is masked by scientific jargon and suggestion is a marketing ploy often used to sell products to people who don't really need them. The power of suggestion is never more obvious than it is in science's vain attempt to paint evolution as a fact, rather than what it really is....an unprovable figment of their imagination.

Now what about your second link....?



"On Wednesday, researchers reported that these may be the oldest fossils ever discovered, the remains of bacteria thriving on Earth not long, geologically speaking, after the very birth of the planet. If so, they offer evidence that life here got off to a very early start.

But many experts in the field were skeptical of the new study — or downright unconvinced.

Martin J. Van Kranendonk, a geologist at the University of New South Wales, called the patterns in the rocks “dubiofossils”fossil-like structures, perhaps, but without clear proof that they started out as something alive."

Are you getting the picture? Please keep the links coming......I enjoy them very much.
It's very telling that basic academic honesty is a sign of weakness to you. If these articles replaced all of their conditional clauses with assertions of certainty, would that make them more worth believing to you? Or do you just believe anything that asserts certainty, regardless of the ACTUAL certainty of the assertions?

Seriously, this is the behavior of a child.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Logic and math are *languages* that we use to help us describe the world. But they are NOT axiomatic. For example, there were explorations of 'quantum logic' that used a different underlying logic to help understand quantum theory (it is no longer used, but it was investigated).

Math is abstract. As such, it doesn't say anything about the real world without a 'translation' which may or may not be accurate. it is science that determines, through observation and testing, which math applies and to what extent. And the mathematical consequences of the laws found are *also* tested, just to be sure the laws apply in the extremes also.

As for 'spirit', I have no idea what that is supposed to be or how it relates to either logic or math.

I say you have a cop out here. I say that respectfully. I'm more than aware that quantum logic takes different tangents in attempts to quantify the logic. It's also called quantum logic because quanta are expected to naturally obey logic!
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Ignoring the "Messianic Jewish Christian" insults you sandwiched this between, why the heck would I want to do that? And what does this "inductive observation" have to with whale crap and singing crickets?

Why would you want to be conciliatory or find common ground with someone you argue with?

I don't know. Why would you want to pursue peace or common ground with debating?
 
Top